Kodak Film - branded Kodak Alaris

[Ian Grant]

Kodak bought the Verichrome factory...

Well only because Mees insisted that they take over Wratten & Wainright if he was to join Eastman Kodak and set up a research facility in Rochester. They also lost Wellington a manager of one of Kodak's UK factories who set up Wellington & Ward eventually merging with Ilford.

Ian

 

[Xmas]

As I hinted at for the Agfa case, these plants were intended for the film market and could be subsidized by it. When losses became unbearable the plants had lost their value to investors long before (the issue of german camera industry being behind).

Ditto leverkusen's factory, as selling the plant was 'instant' cash, Harman like their ex Agfa finishing machine...
APX100 and Agfa photo 100 were my fav films.

 

[Xmas]

Well only because Mees insisted that they take over Wratten & Wainright if he was to join Eastman Kodak and set up a research facility in Rochester. They also lost Wellington a manager of one of Kodak's UK factories who set up Wellington & Ward eventually merging with Ilford.

Ian

Hi Ian

Verichrome was a better film...

Yes normal business jiggery pokery. A company or team is dependent on a leader who can market and deliver rather than team members.

Steve Jobs and Apple for example

But in 1960 the local pharmacy had only yellow boxes by 1980 all the pharmacies had green boxes as well.

 

[AgX]

Ditto leverkusen's factory, as selling the plant was 'instant' cash, Harman like their ex Agfa finishing machine...
APX100 and Agfa photo 100 were my fav films.

Did Agfa ever get cash for that plant...?

 

[AgX]

[Kodak] should have bought Canon and Nikon before '55.

Think of these issues:

-) a favourable company structure as I already hinted at

-) the neccessary capacity to do the investment

-) the custom implications related to importing things from overseas in the 50s.

-) the attitude towards the japanese photo industry
(from what we know, widely talked down up into the 60s at least by the german photographic industry)

-) the existance of knowledge at all about the japanese industry
(for the german industry I have much doubt for people other than export directors)




Does anyone know of any US company that bought in the 50s a foreign firm doing high added value manufacturing to import those products into the USA ?

 

[Xmas]

Did Agfa ever get cash for that plant...?

I think so eventually.
A-G initially got good credit lines for the factory as a going concern so their company accounts were ok except for amount - it was priced to sell.
The purchaser got a good (better) price for the piece parts via the receiver.
Harman like their finishing kit.
The only people who suffered were employees who got redundancy € and stress.
And me cause I used a lot of APX though I still have 48.8m cans in fridge.

 

[AgX]

The indicated value of stuff was much less than the price arranged for the complete plant.

The majority of the assets even went for scrap materials, even in a case of buying offer.

A few people are doing good business with that AgfaPhoto brand, they mysteriously "acquired".

 

[Xmas]

Think of these issues:

-) a favourable company structure as I already hinted at

-) the neccessary capacity to do the investment

-) the custom implications related to importing things from overseas in the 50s.

-) the attitude towards the japanese photo industry
(from what we know, widely talked down up into the 60s at least by the german photographic industry)

-) the existance of knowledge at all about the japanese industry
(for the german industry I have much doubt for people other than export directors)




Does anyone know of any US company that bought in the 50s a foreign firm doing high added value manufacturing to import those products into the USA ?

My phone is horrible but from memory

Attitudes - the Zeiss U.S. marketing manager claimed that the contax 5cm /1.5 was better than the Nikon /1.4 circa 52-53 so one of the US photo mags did an independent test, yes the Zeiss lens was detectably better with tripod and slow film but the Nikon was cheaper. In the UK we call this an own goal.

The U.S. had 'sold' ie given Demming's techniques and Ja industry adopted - it allowed cheaper manufacture. They were aware of the canon and Nikon factories questions and comments...

Leitz did not adopt much of Demming until the M4-2, designed partly in Midland factory in Canada.

Canon made Barnack clones but did not manage any long production runs until the VI in 57 and the P in 59. The P sold 100k over 2.5 years and only professional photographers could import to Uk until about 61. Lots of canons have bought in PX stores engravings.

Normally marketing people in country would have gathered intelligence on other peoples cameras eg looking at serial numbers and yen in camera shops. Buying people lunch... And other illegal techniques.

The U.S. had already bought lots of Uk industry before WWII lots of our industry was unable to export anything the backlog on small autos was more than two years by '50, though Ge bubble autos were more available, and motorised bicycles. Sugar was rationed until '52.

Eg Vauxhall motors had been bought some time in 20-30.

In 50s there would have not been a lot to buy in UK. Even Spain was suffering from a long war.

 

[AgX]

Interesting hint at that attitude thing.

Concerning buying an overseas company the point I made was it would be hard doing so for importing then those products.
And my undestanding of you was just that Kodak should have bought those japanese manufacturers to import those cameras (mainly) to the USA.
On the other hand: in that period japanese labour was real cheap in contrast to US labour. That made it possible to import japanese high-end cameras to the USA (without competing products to face that). But would that also be true for lower end cameras and maybe have overcome any customs issue to allow such plant acquisition?

To what extent where the german-made Kodak-Retinas imported into the USA?

 

[MattKing]

To what extent where the german-made Kodak-Retinas imported into the USA?

Almost all the ones I have seen had distance scales in feet, rather than meters.

Of course, they could have been for the UK market as well.

 

[AgX]

Yes, but in times of the Retinas there was no customs union with the UK either.

 

[Xmas]

Interesting hint at that attitude thing.

Concerning buying an overseas company the point I made was it would be hard doing so for importing then those products.
And my undestanding of you was just that Kodak should have bought those japanese manufacturers to import those cameras (mainly) to the USA.
On the other hand: in that period japanese labour was real cheap in contrast to US labour. That made it possible to import japanese high-end cameras to the USA (without competing products to face that). But would that also be true for lower end cameras and maybe have overcome any customs issue to allow such plant acquisition?

To what extent where the german-made Kodak-Retinas imported into the USA?

PreWWII Ge needed foreign exchange badly so would have dumped them... For strategic materials and eg the lead tetra elthyl plant they bought.

Sir Edmond Hillary and Tenzing Nogay had a Retina folder on Everest in '53 Hillary was a New Zealand bee keeper.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I remember a time, about 20 years ago, when I was in my darkroom and I needed a clear answer about mixing Kodak products and developing times, or how to bleach a given paper, fixer capacity, what time to develop a film at 16c or 28c, anything... A quick 1-800-Kodak call and I'd get all my answers. That was incredible.

I found the same experiences just a couple of years ago when Kodak still had their support telephone number. There were a couple of guys there that would answer the phone and they were very knowledgeable, and if they didn't know the answer, they forwarded me to someone who did. It was excellent!

 

[Xmas]

Interesting hint at that attitude thing.

Concerning buying an overseas company the point I made was it would be hard doing so for importing then those products.
And my undestanding of you was just that Kodak should have bought those japanese manufacturers to import those cameras (mainly) to the USA.
On the other hand: in that period japanese labour was real cheap in contrast to US labour. That made it possible to import japanese high-end cameras to the USA (without competing products to face that). But would that also be true for lower end cameras and maybe have overcome any customs issue to allow such plant acquisition?

To what extent where the german-made Kodak-Retinas imported into the USA?

The US are capitalists profit is good why let the Ja keep it when we can have it.
They bought Nagel's factory and Dr Nagel with it at height of depression.

So I don't see your logic problem.

 

[cmacd123]

in the 50s and 60s, Non-Japanese firms were not allowed to buy more than a minority interest in Japanese firms. SO why would Kodak Bother to waste capital to buy a small stake in Canon or Nikon? If Kodak thought making a rangefinder or SLR would help their overall business, they were quite capable of building it or having it built to order.

It made more sense to build lower end cameras which would help generate film sales.

 

[Sirius Glass]

in the 50s and 60s, Non-Japanese firms were not allowed to buy more than a minority interest in Japanese firms. SO why would Kodak Bother to waste capital to buy a small stake in Canon or Nikon? If Kodak thought making a rangefinder or SLR would help their overall business, they were quite capable of building it or having it built to order.

It made more sense to build lower end cameras which would help generate film sales.

Kodak did build superior cameras called Graflex and Graphic but the courts made them get out of the camera business.

 

[Xmas]

Hi Charles

A 10% stake in Canon in 55 was a good investment.
Instead they closed the Retina factory in '60.
And copied Lands designs ignoring he was number 2 in patent applications.
Land then cleaned them out in Fed court.
They did the exact opposite of what they should have done.
Stupidity beyond all belief...

Noel

 

[AgX]

I would not say they copied Lands design. The judge said so.

The "Retina-plant" was not closed in 1960 nor in the 60s.

 

[Xmas]

I would not say they copied Lands design. The judge said so.

The "Retina-plant" was not closed in 1960 nor in the 60s.

Oops thanks bad digit more exactly they stopped Retina manufacture in '69

I said so and my Kodak sn manager from their UK hdqts said so (1980) but yes the U.S. Fed court and appeals ruled in favour of Land... My opine is an irrelevance ignoring I worked with patents for 40 years...

 

[cmacd123]

the Kodak Poloroid case was one of the interesting ones where the Kodak machine was quite a bit different but Land seemed to get credit for the whole concept of "self developing film" with the technical details not counting for much.

 

[MattKing]

the Kodak Poloroid case was one of the interesting ones where the Kodak machine was quite a bit different but Land seemed to get credit for the whole concept of "self developing film" with the technical details not counting for much.

That was what was so "groundbreaking" about that litigation - and why it was probably wrongly decided.

Before that decision, a patent for a "concept" was not a valid patent. The trial judge made new law by declaring valid what all previous decisions would have declared invalid.

Kodak had the information and wherewithal to use methods and procedures that differed greatly from the approach taken by Polaroid. Normally, if you use very different methods to obtain a similar but not identical result, you won't be in breach of a patent.

Interestingly, Kodak's breach was found not to be willful. So they weren't exposed to increased damages.

The trial was long, but most of it was over the issue of measure of damages. Polaroid sought $12 billion. Kodak was mostly successful on that part. Their "profits" were measured at about $900 million, and therefore that was the amount they were ordered to pay.

By the time that the litigation ended, the instant camera and integral film market was dropping, due to the combination of the explosion of 35mm film use and one hour labs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That was what was so "groundbreaking" about that litigation - and why it was probably wrongly decided.

Before that decision, a patent for a "concept" was not a valid patent. The trial judge made new law by declaring valid what all previous decisions would have declared invalid.

Kodak had the information and wherewithal to use methods and procedures that differed greatly from the approach taken by Polaroid. Normally, if you use very different methods to obtain a similar but not identical result, you won't be in breach of a patent.

Interestingly, Kodak's breach was found not to be willful. So they weren't exposed to increased damages.

The trial was long, but most of it was over the issue of measure of damages. Polaroid sought $12 billion. Kodak was mostly successful on that part. Their "profits" were measured at about $900 million, and therefore that was the amount they were ordered to pay.

By the time that the litigation ended, the instant camera and integral film market was dropping, due to the combination of the explosion of 35mm film use and one hour labs.

Thank you, that is something that I did not know about the case and the change in the laws.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Well summarized, Matt.

As I've mentioned before, prior to the judge's ruling, Kodak management and Polaroid CEO Bill McCune had worked out a settlement that Eddie Land shot down because he felt personally insulted because Kodak dared to enter his market.

The only winner in this dispute turned out to be Fuji who has continued to make an instant film based on the Kodak product as well as used the instant film dye releaser technology in their highly successful Pictrography printers.

 

[Xmas]

the Kodak Poloroid case was one of the interesting ones where the Kodak machine was quite a bit different but Land seemed to get credit for the whole concept of "self developing film" with the technical details not counting for much.

That was Kodaks problem. There are precedents. For example the Wright bros got a valid patent for wing warping which is what birds use.
If you don't understand Patent Law you get to pay.
Polaroid were payed for the reduction in their film sales. And Kodak had to stop film and camera sales cause six of the patents had not expired, several others had.
The courts decisions are on the web paraphrasing them in a parochial manner is not meaningful.
Fuji did not violate any patents for their products.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Fuji did not violate any patents for their products.

Wrong. At the time of the patent dispute, Fuji was making their version of Kodak Instant Film, but Polaroid chose not to sue Fuji as long as they didn't sell the film in the US or Canada. It was only after Polaroid went 'belly up' that Fuji could start selling their Instax film in the US.